Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
> Ruijie Yu via "General discussions about Org-mode." > <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org> writes: > >> Something very troublesome for me is `test-org-clock/clocktable/lang' on >> zh_CN.UTF-8. What I noticed is that when I run this test in batch mode >> (one of the two methods below), it fails: > > Well. Batch and non-batch modes are not the same, especially wrt display > things. And the differences are not consistent for different Emacs > versions. This only happens for weird edge cases though. (Or when > displaying images). Hmm. I guess I won't be trying to fix this particular issue then -- it is a bit beyond my knowledge. Thanks for explaining it. >> +(defconst org-test-timestamp-regexp > > I recommend `org-element-timestamp-parser' for analysis. Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't realize it was there. Although, I don't think I can use this function as-is, nor its internal regexps: all the relevant tests where I used `org-test-timestamp-regexp' tried to remove the day-of-week part. So I would need to know the region for the day-of-week portion. At the moment, I can't think of anything other than making a group for DoW, and removing wrapping `save-match-data' in `org-element-timestamp-parser' -- which is why I had those convoluted group numbers in my `org-test-timestamp-regexp' for all portions that one may ever want to use, hoping that nobody goes beyond defining 100 groups. I also don't know if it is viable to integrate my full-of-`rx' and full-of-`group-n' regexp expression into the 10s of different internal constants representing different possible components of a timestamp. Alternatively (and I say this very hesitantly), we could try to rewrite all the involved tests so that we don't need to try to remove DoW from the timestamp. But, I haven't figured out how to do all of them (they are also of different styles, some with repeater, some with warning period, some are bare, etc), and there are -- I think -- around 40 of them that needs changing. -- Best, RY [Please note that this mail might go to spam due to some misconfiguration in my mail server -- still investigating.]